R43B Pair Misidentified

People should try to remember that the certs from years ago were not necessarily done by revenue experts. The people who look at them over the last few years are much more knowledgeable about revenues, so the certs reflect that by being more accurately written.

That is what it does say. You seem to take pleasure in being deliberately obtuse with this. I don't understand how or why you would expect different people with different knowledge levels from totally different eras to write certs in exactly the same way.

With all due respect, that sounds like a Trump cop out. "It didn't happen when I was here, so there is zero responsibility on my part."

If a firm is going to put their name and reputation behind an opinion, it should last for more than a few minutes.

What is the official cut off threshold? Two years? A month? Nine minutes?

And ignoring all of the PF's customers/ critiscisms complamits wont help.

Jim

Playing devil's advocate for just a second, does this verdict mean that logically, since the stamps are deemed genuine part perfs but the pair is not an accepted pair, then the item(s) should be valued as two part perf singles rather than a pair?

If that is the case, that is certainly not the pricing model that the major action houses use... in their eyes, a pair is a pair is a pair, regardless of orientation.

I can see how people would genuinely get annoyed: "Wait, it's a pair of part perf stamps but not a part perf pair?"

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck...

You just want to be argumentative; by your logic we should still have slavery since the constitution said it was OK. Should not have been changed by new people looking at it.
Those opinions are many years old, not "minutes". And unlike today, they were mostly being done by dealers, often with a financial interest or a "one hand washes the other" attitude. Anyone who thinks that all the opinions from an organization that is 70 years old are going to read the same is very naive.
It would catalog as two singles; that is how Richard or Eric would sell them. Auction houses miscatalog items all the time in puffing lots in specialty areas, why should these be different?

Jim,
You definition of IT as the geeky person who fixes printers is a bad sweeping generalization. Information Technology is defined as 'using technology to deliver information when and where people need it'. IT also typical oversees an ALL of an organization's technology initiatives. In this day and technology age IT has become one of the most critical segments of many companies for taking the organization forward into the future. Because of this the average salary range for VP of IT is currently $150k - $200k.

All,
Reminder, this is not the right place for political discussions. Every time we have tried to hold a civil discussion regarding politics it turns out poorly.
Thanks
Don

I am going to take the rare position of sticking up for Bart and the PF. Nothing wrong with what they are doing at all. Just because for valuing purposes (and proof of genuineness), Scott says part perfs must be imperf between and at the ends does not mean the PF can't acknowledge a genuine multiple in a different configuration! The PF is simply stating that the pair is not in the Scott-listed configuration but is every bit a genuine pair.

Fraud is a bit strong. I see it as one of the many different forms of puffery. Not really any different than over-stating condition, centering, or scarcity IMO.

I agree with sinclair fraud is pretty strong. I would lean towards ill-informed. I myself have made mistakes in the past and have attempted to remedy them when possible. It would be up to each individual to decide if they would acknowledge their mistake or not.

Collectors, dealers, and auction houses pay a considerable amount of real money to obtain stamp certificates.

As has been shown here many times before, the presence or absence of even a single comma, number, or letter on that certificate can sometimes mean a huge difference in interpretation by those that read the certificate.

The entire purpose of the certificate is to remove all confusion, and to state categorically exactly and specifically what the stamp in question is. Typographical errors should simply not be permitted, nor should there be any "reading between the lines."

(I wanted to "bold" the above sentences and make them all caps, because this is the entire point of what I'm trying to say here.)




I am trying to help improve something that clearly needs some further attention, by someone there that is similarly seeking continuous improvement in their processes. I assumed that this was one of the goals at the Philatelic Foundation?




If there is an "expiration" date on a stamp certificate, then it should be stated. No, no one expects every certificate ever issued to remain 100% accurate, and yes technology changes constantly and the people that examine stamps come and go and learn new techniques and so on and so forth, but (and at this point, pretend that you were on the other end of the equation and are holding the stamp and the certificate in hand) exactly when does a certificate become questionable?




Including this text on a certificate does nothing whatsoever except add confusion; ergo this thread.

Rather than twist the definition of a "pair" around to match what is perceived by a current viewer at the foundation, despite this particular terminology when it comes to part-perf. pairs being well defined by the Scott catalog for many years, maybe use different words.

I would suggest "two conjoined singles." Perhaps redundant, but a) everyone reading the certificate from that point forward will understand exactly what the certificate is describing, because the wording is very specific, and b) because "pair" wasn't mentioned, there is no confusion between the foundation's explanation of a pair versus the Scott catalog's explanation of a pair.




Just trying to understand here: if trimming the perforations off a revenue stamp and then attempting to sell it as an imperf. is basically fraud, how is calling what is clearly not a pair as defined by Scott a pair also not (potentially) fraud?

Jim

Hi Jim

You are top drawer!

Well done sir.

Outstanding insights.

Too bad stamps don't come with instructions on the reverse (just kidding).

Stampmaster

Sorry, it was meant as a humorous, self deprecating assessment of my own career, and not as an insult towards others in the field.

Jim

Jim,

What is a fax machine, and why does anyone fix them?

Kinda like a buggy whip repairman?

I know this was meant in jest, and when it comes to the vast majority of uses it is a truism, however there are legitimate reasons for retaining an analog fax machine.

A traditional fax machine attached to an analog phone line and not connected to a computer network is not vulnerable to being hacked (at least not in the sense most commonly used). The data sent to it is infinitely more secure than data sent across and stored on a computer network (personnel and physical security issues notwithstanding).

This has become a huge issue for companies and universities that have switched entirely from analog to VOIP systems. Standard e-fax systems do not meet security requirements for PCI compliance (credit card data), FERPA (student data records), and HIPAA (medical records), amongst others.

The instant you put any of that information on a computer, it is not just the security of that machine that comes into play, but the security of any network it is attached to and any computer that is touched on the many hops on its journey from sender to recipient.

Of course what you do with that data once received and how securely it is handled is another matter.

Sorry for the tangent, but those old buggy whips still have a legitimate use in places...

StateRevs,

You'd probably be surprised how much old technology is still in use in businesses, governments, churches, etc.

I support about 225 computers and not all of them are even running Windows 7. Some are Windows 10, but there are still some Vista and XP machines here and there.

And I'm just referring to the U.S. There was a big ransomware attack several weeks ago that affected many, many companies overseas. They (apparently) never upgraded their Windows XP computers with service packs, let alone the operating system itself.

Not quite buggy whip era technology I guess but not every company has the newest iPhones, either.

Which is ultimately fortunate for guys like me.



Jim